The Christian conservative website WorldNetDaily has got its undies in a twist over an option that permits same-sex couples in Hasbro's The Game of Life.

The downloadable PC title is an update of the classic board game of the same name. WND writes:

The online version of a popular board game from many Americans' childhood includes an option for players to choose homosexual marriage and child-rearing as a way of life... even children can download and play a free trial version of The Game of Life, the first game ever created by Mr. Milton Bradley in 1860.

The player's first option in the online version is to choose a persona based on pictures that clearly depict men and women. Shortly thereafter, the game invites players to choose a spouse, regardless of the potential spouse's sex...

But, as WND notes, the modern version of the board game, created in 1960, allowed for gay unions as well:

The board game did not prevent players in any way from placing two pink or two blue pegs in the front seat [of the playing piece representing the family car], thus depicting a homosexual couple.

GP: Got this tip from none other than Jack Thompson during the course of seeking comment on last night's passage of the Utah video game bill.

Comments

So the 1960 version of the boardgame encouraged homosexualty? Um last I checked, little plastic pegs do not have Any sexuality (jackie did they tell you that themselves? ie Are you hearing voicies again?) so sitting two of the game color together is meaningless. Looking back I dont remember anyone having brought up the lifestyles of plastic game pieces before. Even when I used to play the game and was young and rather vulgar (bathroom humor level) the idea of 2 of any color pets together was not even vaguely odd or funny (though I was encouraged to beleive that homosexuality was).

If the game of life is even vaguely based on the idea of real life that yep homosexual options need to be available. Forget your wishful thinking jackie, homosexuals have existed for a long long time, not likely to up and be gone tomorrow.

BTW. Will you people stop bagging on conservatives? I am a conservative (really) at least in the beleif that if I work for a thing I deserve that thing and not to have it taken away and offered it to someone that did not work for it (in the form of taxes and social programs). Going to have to start a new concept: Conservaphobe.

The old game of life my parents still have has only the white pegs. But my wife and I just bought the latest version of the game for our five year old son and there are in fact baby blue and pink pegs now.

No offense, but if you are offended by the conservative bashing, go somewhere else. You are entitled to your beliefs, but the stark reality is that nobody who can truthfully call themselves a "Progressive" or a "Liberal" would complain about homosexuality in the game of Life.. So, that leaves Conservatives and Christians as the culprits. Seeing as they are rallying against something they have no right to meddle in (the lives of homosexuals), they deserve all the bashing they get..

Just dont get it. It is not a binary thing, ie 100 black/white, conservative/liberal whatever. You feel from your position that NONE of the liberals would attempt to curtail beleifs/actions when you can really only speak for yourself and maybe a small handfull of people you know well.

I trust (have no proof so have to trust ie its a respect thing) that you personally would not do those things yet you somehow think that you have the right to say I would? Why? Because I believe in smaller government, less taxes, less government interference, and the right to keep what I have earned? Conservatives are not the collective Satan (have to work religion in somewhere though I personally avoid it). For every rabid type (and their are some on both sides of the political isle) there are some that are realitively sane. Ie I can be conservation and still despise people (well subhumans) like Glenn Beck or Jumping Jack Thompson.

Basically each person has to right to do as they wish up to a point. What point you ask. The point where they behavior/actions have a negative effect on another. Sweeping statements covering a group is the sign of one that has not taken time or consideration. Remember to see the forest AND the trees.

I can respect your Economic/Small government views. In fact, I believe that, somewhere, in the middle of the Republican/Democratic economic views is the correct way to go. Nationalize some things, leave the rest to free market/capitalism. However, the side that gets me the most is the social side. When I say "Conservative" I really mean "Social Conservative."

Those people out that think that Gays, Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, and Women all have a place below themselves in the world.

Those people who think its OK just to let someone Starve to death because they made a few bad choices in thier lives.

Those people that think if you aren't American, you aren't relevant.

THOSE are the people I am referring to. THEY are the evil, the bad, and the worthless. Don't take offense to anything I say if you aren't amongst those people.

If you are, however, I am more than willing to direct my fury in your direction :)

"So, that leaves Conservatives and Christians as the culprits"Congratulations, sir. You are now officially a racist.

"When I say "Conservative" I really mean "Social Conservative."Then use that term, and don't tell someone to leave just because he's sick of the generalizations that apparently you also tend to make by using the wrong terms, thus targetting even those that strongly disagree with the point of view you're marking as your mortal foe. When you're the one at fault with a generalization, those affected by it shouldn't be marked as the party that has to take responsibility for your mistake by shutting up.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

If you are going to use over dramatized insults, at least pick one that APPLIES to the situation.

Last I checked, I am fighting for ALL HUMANS to be equal. Your argument is invalid.

I am generalizing, yes, and yes, there are conservatives who aren't homophobes. However, fighting against the rights of Gays is a CONSERVATIVE stance, therefore, people who do so are CONSERVATIVES. I see nothing wrong with what I said.

For the rest of your argument, you make no sense. English as a second language, much?

But if I were to use one that actually applies, you wouldn't actually understand the insult is a play and not meant seriously. It's the internet, if I don't make completely over the top comments, people are going to take them serious and insult me back. Now they get the chance to use their heads and realize I'm trying to draw their attention in to read the serious point that follows.

As for my argument not making sense, I find the line after that rather offensive. As far as I can tell it makes my point rather clear, and if you don't understand you could decide to, I dunno, ask me to explain more detailed rather than putting the blame on me and leave it at that.

You said you mean Social Conservatives when you mean Conservatives. However, someone who was upset because you and so many others use the term Conservatives even when you actually mean a more narrow version, you told that if it offends him, he should leave.

In other words, you deliberately generalize. When someone calls you out on it and makes clear he's offended by your generalization, you tell him he should leave. You are at fault for the generalization, yet he is the one who has to leave because of you. This is something you're responsible for, not he, so man up and take your responsibility, rather than continuing to offend people you are not supposed to have a quarrel with.

Look, my point was, I don't care WHO I offend. I spend enough time offending people when I talk about my (male) roommate and his boyfriend hanging out at home, playing GH with me. What I am saying is that he has a choice. He can either

A: Continue reading and taking my comments about conservatives with a grain of salt, because they don't necessarily apply to him.

or

B: Go somewhere else, because I am not going to change how I choose to write my comments, and if his skin is so thin that he can't handle that, even when I am railing on a different part of his political alignment than he may necessarily be, he needs to toughen up and take it, or get the hell out of dodge.

Like they say: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.

Edit: Also, I am sorry if I insulted you in my response to your previous post, but it is harder to determine sarcasm from regular text, sometimes. It seemed to me like you were calling me a Racist, even when I want Equal rights for each and every person on this earth..

In Icehawk's defense, the modern "conservative" movement breaks several tenents of traditional conservatism.

In relation with the topic in hand, trying to restrict others based on "moral" grounds is against the traditional conservative ideal of the government staying the hell out of your life and your bedroom. By this definition, the term "social conservatism" i.e. the culture war shit is an oxymoron.

Of course the terms are thrown around so much that their current definitions are used to label the opposing argument as the "bad guys". "Oh, he's so liberal..." "Damn conservative bastards..." It's gotten so bad that those on either side who would like to have an intellectual conversation and perhaps even compromise on issues to get something done, well, can't least they be considered "bedding with the enemy" and become a pariah of their own party.

The great irony here is that you want to meddle in THEIR beliefs by demanding that they change them or be silent. Freedom of speach works both ways, as I've often said. The constant name calling and "all Christians are stupid, dur" commentary is just as bigotted as the language that nutbars like WND has used. You can't claim otherwise and all sides need to be heard here so that the Truth might be found.

Tell me, How are we meddling in THIER beliefs when WE just want to live OUR lives the way WE want? The ONLY way you could draw that paralell is if we are attempting to FORCE them to have gay sex with each other or worship a god they don't believe in! It is the Conservatives who seem to think they have some kind of right to FORCE us to live the way THEY want us to, when in fact, WE just want to live our lives the way we want to. It would be a non-issue if they just shut thier face and left us alone..

Really both sides are accusing the other of being wrong, and both sides horribly steroetype the other. Not all Conservatives try to force their opinions on everyone they meet--just the extreme ones.

Similarly, we believe that they should stop bashing homosexuality, which is really just us trying to force them to shut up and accept something they think is evil. The difference is that our "meddling" does not affect them personally. We want everyone to decide for him/herself, which leaves room for Conservatives lifestyles. They want everyone to stop cliff-diving into hell, which means they want only what they see as the "right" option to be available.

Still, more than half of what I said is also stereotyping in some way...

The meddling comes into play when you demand that they be silent or face you, and those like you, haranguing them. That is a form of meddling, by definition, whether you like it or not.

There's also a very large misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what the vast majority of Christians believe in this matter. Yes many of us do, in fact, believe that homosexuality is a sin; however the majority of us that do believe that don't spend our days thinking up ways to hurt people. We go about our business, day by day, and we try to live by the teaching that Christ left us. Yes we will speak up when we feel something is wrong but that doesn't mean we're going to go around trying to hurt people because of what we believe.

Yes, because Lobbying against Gay marriage isn't Hurting every gay couple in the US

Yes, because complaining about the gays being evil and corrupting your children isn't hurtful

Yes, because actively fighting the rights of Gays to adopt isn't hurting ANYONE..

While there are Christians out there who don't actively bash, harass, or openly hate gays, and these hateful comments aren't directed at them. However, the moment they Vote against gay rights or voice thier dissent about having to work next to a guy who talks about his Husband, they become part of that group.

Also, to your first point:

"The meddling comes into play when you demand that they be silent or face you."

So, what? We aren't supposed to exist at ALL? It seems all you people want is for us just to shrivel up and DIE. I don't feel like I should HIDE who I am because YOU think its wrong. The fact of the matter is WE EXIST, and WE AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE. In fact, we are willing to FIGHT tooth and nail to make sure we are on EQUAL GROUND with EVERY OTHER AMERICAN IN THIS COUNTRY. So, excuse me, if I am a bit hateful that YOU and YOUR ILK stand directly in the way of ME living the WAY I WANT AND DESERVE TO LIVE. The fact of the matter is that we are being discriminated against by you on a daily basis, and people like you are the culprit. YOU need to ACCEPT the fact that we aren't going ANYWHERE, no matter how loud yell.

1. I've never said that people don't have the right to live as they choose.

2. In the case of adoption I think the only thing that should be considered is the best interests of the child. If that means a gay couple then that's what should be done and nothing more.

3. I'll admit to not being for gay marriage on religious grounds. Its what I believe. I think that couples should be able to visit one another in the hospital and share insurance regardless though. Legally speaking, couples (same sex or otherwise) should be able to share the benefits. If that means civil unions then so be it, the only thing I would object to is marriage. However if the people vote it in, then I would recognize it as legal and still treat other people as I want to be treated.

4. I've never called gay people evil. I've said that homosexuality is a sin. I've sinned too and I wouldn't think to claim otherwise. We've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so I'd be pretty hypocritical if I tried to claim I was some perfect picture of Christianity. I fall sometimes, I'm only human after all.

5. Let me say again that I'm not, and have never said, that you have no right to live as you see fit. I'm certainly not standing in your way. Go out and live, and stop caring about what other people think.

So anytime a person is uncomfortable talking to a co-worker about their same-sex partner then they're some kind of bigot? That's not irrational at all. Maybe they just need to get used to hearing about it, or maybe they think that talk like that is best left for outside the workplace. There are multiple reasons why someone might be uncomfortable talking about such things. I would be only because I'm fairly private about things that would be in my personal life and generally think that those kinds of conversations should be private. But that's just me.

Wouldn't the best solution then be to make seperate the term "marriage" from the legal benefits? That way, a "marriage" would only be a religious thing, and legally, you'd have a "civil union". Additional benefit would be that people with different marriage definitions (I think I read something once about people somewhere sometimes marrying goats for good luck or something... and there's bigamy, too) wouldn't have any problem getting married, since it wouldn't be a civil union.

Well firstly, there already is a thing called a civil union, and it is different from a marriage. Less benefits.

Futhermore, I think, no, it would not be the best solution. Because seperating it is still a seperation of straight couples, and gay couples. I think, in order to be truly equal, even in words, there must not be seperation.

Take blacks for example. Sure, they were "equal" but still segregated. I think, that defining straigh couples as "married" and gay couples as, I dunno, "unioned?" is kind of the same idea; it is a verbal form of a kind of segregation.

... except insisting on the homosexual legally binding partnerships being called marriage is akin to straight couples demanding that homosexuals not be called gay or queer but faggots instead. It's just a word, right? No harm in them calling you that, right?

As soon as a civil union has equal rights under the law to that of a marriage (and I very much doubt they're all that different legally tbqh), and gays have access to it, it becomes a non-issue in my mind. Anything after that is simply petty whinging that serves no purpose.

The only place that humans can be equal under is the law. Having stupid ideas about everything being the same for everyone else is the domain of nutty Communists/Socialists because humans are not and cannot be biologically equal.

From now on, anyone who is a jock, they get full benefits as a human. But, not those born physically handicapped, since y'know, they're not really equal to athletes in their ability, so obviously, they're not human enough to deserve those rights.

Oh, and if an athlete retires or gets stricken with a disability due to injury or whatever, take away their rights. Since, they clearly, like the handicapped, aren't human enough anymore. After all, the handicapped, especially born, are biologically different and cannot be equal.

Yeah, I know, insane right? How I want equality for all, it must be because, and oh yes this is true, I AM a Socialist.

As for 1 through 5, I don't really care what YOU have done as a person. I am talking about the Socially conservative, Anti-Gay Marriage, Culture that you belong to.

I will say this however.. Someone put it very well, in a comment below this:

If you have ever voted against the civil rights of the GBLT community, then you have performed an Act of Cruelty towards the GBLT community. It doesn't matter if you are outwardly cruel or hateful to a gay individual, just believing what you do, and voting along with those beliefs is a cruel act.

In regards to THIS little gem:

"So anytime a person is uncomfortable talking to a co-worker about their same-sex partner then they're some kind of bigot? That's not irrational at all. Maybe they just need to get used to hearing about it, or maybe they think that talk like that is best left for outside the workplace. There are multiple reasons why someone might be uncomfortable talking about such things. I would be only because I'm fairly private about things that would be in my personal life and generally think that those kinds of conversations should be private. But that's just me."

So, its ok for a male coworker to say "Yeah, me and the wife/girlfriend went out and saw a movie last night." but its not okay for the same coworker to say "Yeah, me and the Husband/Boyfriend went out and saw a movie last night."? Because the first is normal, and the second isn't? Thats the problem, you have no problem talking about your lives and conversing about who you are because you seem to think you are "Normal."

Its not like we are rubbing it in your face and saying things like "Yeah, I totally plowed my Boyfriend's Ass last night. It was so frigging Hot, you should have been there!" That kind of speech should remain in private, lest we have a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit on our hands.. However, we shouldn't have to hide who we are, because it makes YOU feel uncomfortable.

Actually what I meant, and I thought I was pretty clear on this, was that there are people who just don't want to hear the details of ANYONE'S private life. It may have nothing to do what-so-ever with being a homophobe, and you better get your facts straight about it before flinging around those kinds of accusations.

There is nothing wrong with chatting with someone, saying you went to a movie, or hung out, or went bowling.

"Hey, Bob, How's the wife?" "Ahh, she's good, went Bowling yesterday"

"Chuck! What's up? How are the kid's doing?"

These things all happen in normal conversation. I can't imagine anyone, even the most socially shy or introverted person thinking these conversations should be kept private, but the moment some guy says, "Yeah, I took my boyfriend and joined the local Couple's Bowling league", all of a sudden it's taboo to talk about?

Its ridiculous how anti-gays attempt to 'justify' their arguments with strange attempts at logic that utterly fail.

talking to a person about their partner isnt 'private'.Talking about sex etc, yeah i can totally see hwo youd not want to talk about that and thinki it should be kept private, but Why do some people have this wierd thing in their head that talking to straight people about partners requires talking about dinner / movies / planned vacations etc (everyday conversation), yet think that talking to a gay person somehow involves only talking about sex etc.

I just cant fathom it. your talking to a person about their partner. not to a different species.

The entire conversation is pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME.

For example... here is a acted conversation. Ive not mentioned names or genders. Is 'Person 2' a member of a straight or homosexual couple?

Person 1: "So, got any plans for the weekend? "

Person 2: " Ahh, not much, we're prolly just gonna chill out, perhaps go watch that new movie at the cinema on saturday, do you want to come along? "

Person 1: " Yeah sure that sounds great!"

what.. you cant tell. Whoopee bl**dy surprise. Im not going to tell you. Maybe thats because ultimately your just talking TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The conversation can be EXACTLY THE SAME. So if its ok to ask a straight guy its ok to ask a gay guy. ultimately ... your asking just a guy. Sexual orientation plays absolutely no role in it. And to suggest so is just plain strange, and ultimately plain stupid.

Its as relevant as answering the question 'Do you want steak for dinner tonight' with 'Is it raining out?'. Yes its a factor that exists. It may or may not be raining. Big claps for you. However you seem to have somehow got the misguided assumption that anyone else but you cares, since its not relevant.

A person's comfort at talking about their private lives, in any context, is hardly irrelevant. Believe it or not there are people who won't even mention that they went bowling or to the movies because they just don't like discussing those things with anyone but their closest friends.

I've already said that in cases of adoption the only thing that should come into play is what's in the best interest of the child and nothing else. If a gay couple is the most stable home and would be the best to help the child grow and develop then that's where the child should be placed.

I honestly don't know what the best solution for the marriage issue should be. I know how I personally feel about it but I also think that couples should have the same rights across the board when it comes to things like hospital visits, insurance and the like. We're only going to come to a solution when all sides stop sniping at one another and start talking honestly.

As I see it, however, he did NOT say "be silent." What I read it as, was if you cannot take the criticism, then go elsewhere, because relief will not be sought here simply for the sole reason of the original commenter being uncomfortable with said criticism.

Also, I must disagree. To a point. Sure, you may not sit around thinking of ways to harm them, at least in a certain perspective (such as saying they are the cause of Katrina). HOWEVER, that does not mean you are not harming them altogether. You are.

You are doing so by denying the rights of marriage and adoption. Human rights, that are being struck from them, in a country where everyone is supposed to be equal.

You may argue all you want that marriage is a religious matter, and to an extent, it is. BUT, married couples also recieve government-promised benefits, correct?

So in the eyes of our government, homosexual marriage should be constitutionally protected, because so long as married couples recieve their benefits, it is also a goverment matter. And religion and government must be seperate.

Homosexual marriage should be constitutionally promised and protected. However, not at the cost of forcing a church to perform it; leave that as their own choice.

I have to agree with the rest of you. It certainly says a lot about todays world when conservative looneys focus on such unimportant and mundane issues that only exemplify their myopic outlook on human nature and their constant predjudice and bigotry. I'm sure the manufacturer of the computer game followed the LIFE board games rules too the letter and since the board game makes no rule against two of the same color (blue/pink gender) game pieces playing together, the computer game didn't either. It's that simple, no subliminal commentary from the game maker endorsing homosexuality. there was just no rule against it set by the games manufacturer. Now the conservative looneys are going to INVENT one to suit THEIR need for a soapbox topic to rant about.

As a modern culture, how does hate like this propogate? Is it religion solely? It is family hate perpetuated generation after generation? I see some of these nut jobs when I pick up my kids from school. Their kids are obviously miserable when they see mine (or other less controlling families kids) play with whatever they want whenever they want. And the conservative kid is being told not to play with MY kid just because he is wearing a shirt with the Spiderman character "Venom" on the shirt?!?! The conservative looney was calling my kid a "devil worshiper" because of the shirt?!?!? My son has no concept of angels and demons. I just had to shake my head and laugh it off or else I might have caused a scene at my sons school. As far as I am concerned, some of these uber-conservatives need to have CPS called on them because its child abuse, pure and simple in my opinion.

I caught part of the movie "Jesus Camp" again the other day and my wife got to see some of it for the first time. She was crying after about 30 minutes of watching it because she could just not understand how parents could force innocent children who don't understand the crimes being commited against them to basically swear fealty to a poster board cut out of George Bush. He's a politician not a saint!

I'm not saying all religion is bad. If its working for you, great, I'm thrilled for you. But keep you religion to yourself, keep your bigotry to yourself, and above all, don't point your ignorance anywhere near my children. Especially when they are playing an completely innocent game of LIFE.

I have heard of Jesus camp though lack any type of personal knowledge or even know anyone that has seen it. Heard about it about the same time as I heard about the vague idea of building camps (aka prisons) in more remote places and put "undesirables" there. Undesirables in that venue were homosexuals and those that were know to be HIV positive. Have to wonder (yet again) just how far we are from being socalist.

Please bear in mind, this is not meant as an attack on you personally, I have no intention of that. But I am fucking sick of hearing socialist = bad.

I am an American Socialist, I am strongly liberal, and what you have mentioned is "socialist" in the broadest of terms! Yes, Communism and such IS a socialist goverment, that is true, HOWEVER, that is not the ONLY form of socialist political ideology! All Communists are Socialists, but not all Socialists are Communists.

Listen, yes, we do think Capitalism is broken. But that does not mean, simply because we are socialist, that we'd make such horrible camps, that we want to abolish all of your privacy and ideas of ownership. We are not Communists. If you really must know, many of us socialists in the US are Democratic Socialists. We want socialism through democratic means.

We do not want to treat people as slaves or prisoners in their own country. We do not want it so the goverment owns you. We do not want it they can invade you privacy on a whim (in fact, if anything, some of us would say the opposite, more privacy, and more government transparency).

The fundamentials of the Constitution would continue to be preserved and protected.

In short; please, do not refer to Socialism in such a broad term. If you really must, be more specific. Because using it in such a way is nothing more than stereotyping. And that stereotype is, all of socialism is evil.

Feel free to disagree with what I believe in politically, that is your right, and I certainly won't stop you from it (though that doesn't mean I won't engage you in argument), but do not paint us as some evil oppressing Communists; that is not the truth.

Get a life! There are much more important issues to worry about than same sex marriage in a VIDEO GAME! It's just a game! Figure out how you can help the economy instead of bashing stupid B.S. like this. This is not anything new, it has been around since the dawn of time, but because we're in the age of technology, it's more visable. People like you give religions a bad name! Argh this pisses me off!

Gamers in whole need a group that goes around, touring the states/world, whatever, that basically puts all these a-hole groups in their place. Everything we're seeing now as far as same-sex relationships, violence among young kids, all that other crap people seem to blame games on, isn't something new. All these issues have been here long before video games.

The game isn't promoting it, and isn't forcing you into it, it is a choice, and therefore it is upto to the player about what they choose to do. It seems like this organisation is afraid that without certain constraints everyone will choose to go gay, because apparently the gay life (what with all the hatred and such) is so enticing that everyone wants to go gay, and they don't because it was mentioned briefly (wasn't good enough to be one of the Ten Commandments) in the Bible.

After his disbarment and also his legislation that had to be changed so many times in order to pass it with a toothless grin, I can just say that John Bruce Thompson should have quit while he was a head.

Jacks disbarrment is only temporary, he has us 'right where he wants us'

on this VERY SITE. jack replied to a post i made personally, and said that i had to 'wait and see' he had a 'surprise''up his sleeve' and that he 'wouldnt be disbarred'.... (er.. scratch that - he ammended it) 'wouldnt be permanantly disbarrred'

Yeah actually thinking about it... that was a fair while back... God damn it jack you promised me a surprise and i want it now!

I... I... I wish this way really a big deal. I was ten when I played a round of "dyke van" in this game... it's always been there.

I mean, what do they want this game to do? Show up with a window that states "You are dirty and wrong and in all likelyhood going to hell and burning forever you sinful, sinful bastard.... now pick an opposite sex partner and press X to continue?"

I mean THAT draws more attention to the morale issue than just giving the option without mentioning it.

Infophile: @Matt: Apparently Dan Aykroyd actually is involved. We don't know how yet, though, but he's apparently going to be in the movie in some way.08/02/2015 - 4:17am

Mattsworkname: I still hold that not having the origonal cast invovled in any way hurts this movie, and unless the 4 actresses in the lead roles can some how measure up to the comic timing of the origonal cast, i just don't see it being a success08/02/2015 - 12:46am

Mattsworkname: Mecha: regardless of what you think of it, GB 2 was a finanical success and for it time did well with audiances ,even if it wasnt as popular as the first08/02/2015 - 12:45am

MechaTama31: I think they're better off trying to do something different, than trying to be exactly the same and having every little difference held up as a shortcoming. Uncanny valley.08/01/2015 - 11:57pm

MechaTama31: Having the original cast didn't do much for... that pink-slimed atrocity which we must never speak of.08/01/2015 - 11:56pm

Mattsworkname: Andrew: If the new ghostbusters bombs, I cant help but feel it'll be cause it removed the origonal cast and changed the formula to much08/01/2015 - 8:31pm

Andrew Eisen: Not the best look but that appears to be a PKE meter hanging from McCarthy's belt.08/01/2015 - 7:34pm

Mattsworkname: You know what game is a lot of fun? rocket league. It' s a soccer game thats actually fun to play cause your A Freaking CAR!08/01/2015 - 7:02pm

Mattsworkname: Nomad colossus did a little video about it, showing the world and what can be explored in it's current form. It's worth a look, and he uses text for commentary as not to break the immerison08/01/2015 - 5:49pm

Mattsworkname: I feel some more mobility would have made it more interesting and I feel that a larger more diverse landscape with better graphiscs would help, but as a concept, it interests me08/01/2015 - 5:48pm

Andrew Eisen: Huh. I guess I'll have to check out a Let's Play to get a sense of the game.08/01/2015 - 5:47pm

Mattsworkname: It did, I found the idea of exploring a world at it's end, exploring the abandoned city of a disappeared alien race and the planets various knooks and crannies intriqued me.08/01/2015 - 5:46pm

Andrew Eisen: Did it appeal to you? If so, what did you find appealing?08/01/2015 - 5:43pm

Mattsworkname: Its an interesting concept, but it's not gonna appeal to everyone thats for sure,08/01/2015 - 5:40pm

Andrew Eisen: That sounds horrifically boring. Doesn't sound like an interesting use of its time dilation premise either. 08/01/2015 - 5:36pm